Gaston Gazette

66°

Mostly Cloudy

Un Monde Libre


A world citizen in Small-town America

The Dubious Nature of Kony 2012

March 9th, 2012, 10:50 pm by

There is no doubt that even the most casual web surfer has, in recent days, been exposed to the Kony 2012 campaign on Youtube and throughout social media.

In a matter of days, the video has garnered tens of millions of views, while enjoying significant coverage in the mainstream press, radio and television.

The video was released by the San Diego-based organization Invisible Children, led by activist Jason Russell.

In the filmmaker’s own words, the video aims to make Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, a “famous” figure to be immediately arrested and tried so as to set an international “precedent” for justice.

Kony is accused of overseeing recruitment and abuse of child soldiers, sexual mutilation and abuse of women, and campaigns of murder throughout the Acholi region of Northern Uganda.

By the LRA’s own admission, it is a movement dedicated to creating a theocratic state that will derive its authority and law directly from the Christian bible.

In activist and academic circles, the group’s actions have been regularly discussed and denounced, but this viral campaign marks its first true introduction to the broader public.

KONY DECONSTRUCTION

As the video of Kony and the LRA has ripped through the internet, it has equally unleashed the power of “slactivists” worldwide, collectively joining the band-wagon of African-awareness feel-goodism in tweeting, Facebooking and blogging the video to all corners of the Internet.

While no individual can argue that renewed awareness of mass causalities is a bad thing, I find it most appropriate to more specifically deconstruct the aims of Invisible Children and the Kony 2012 campaign.

To begin, it is always appropriate to examine the latest facts of the situation.

Joseph Kony, the notorious leader of the LRA who is the face of this campaign, has not been in Uganda since 2006.

The LRA has not been any significant force in the Acholi region since then, and Kony himself has not been spotted in over two and a half years.

In fact, the Ugandan army has, in search of Kony and his cronies, been accused of even worse crimes than the LRA.

A new report written by the Social Science Research Council provides evidence that Ugandan troops are involved with hundreds of cases of prostitution, rape and murder–though they receive full support from Invisible Children and countless other NGOs.

For full affect, the video claims that the LRA actively has an army of 30,000 child soldiers—a number which actually represents the total number of kidnapped children since the beginning of the conflict nearly 30 years ago, and even the number of central Africans killed in the war.

The video makes the case for further American military intervention in Uganda, even after President Obama signed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act in 2010 and sent over 100 troops into Uganda to “assist” and “advise” Ugandan troops actively searching for remnants of the LRA.

If the Americans can just send more technology and weapons, narrates Jason Russell, then the search for Kony can finally come to an end, a point made through the promotional photograph of the filmmakers touting weapons with the Ugandan army.

INCENTIVES MATTER

After establishment of the facts involved, it is useful to turn to the aims and finances of the group itself.

According to Invisible Children’s 2010 and 2011 financial assessment, the group spent over $8 million on production, film, and salaries, raising close to $13 million from donors and patrons.

Of that $8 million spent, only 32 percent actively found its way onto the African continent, the reason Charity Navigator has routinely given the charity low marks for transparency and effectiveness and the Better Business Bureau has been vocal in their own criticism.

Renewed focus on the group has evoked a plethora of criticism in academia and the media.

Perhaps the most targeted aspect of the charity’s campaign is the $30-plus-shipping-and-handling Kony 2012 action kit, maxed out with posters and wristbands allowing customers to propagate the message of African warlord justice.

Writers at the Atlantic described Invisible Children as an “arrogant” and “misguided” group that will eventually do “more harm” than good in the fight for justice in Africa.

“It is the right message but it’s 15 years too late, ” says Ugandan military spokesman Col. Felix Kulayige.

“If people cared 15 years ago, then thousands of lives would have been saved and thousands of children would have stayed at home and not been kidnapped.”

Rosebell Kagumire, a reputed and award-winning Ugandan journalist, also denounces their monolithic approach to a problem already left in the dust.

Even the original photographer of the filmmaker’s gun-touting pose with the Ugandan military has come out to criticize the video, claiming the group has long been “emotionally manipulative” in its productions.

PLAYING INTO GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY

Perhaps the most important ramification of the Kony 2012 campaign rests in the geopolitical and economic strategies which actually underlie the core issue.

With untold billions of dollars worth of oil newly-discovered in Uganda, the area has become a hotbed of Western investment and vast potential profits for well-connected oil companies.

Just last month, British oil giant Tullow signed a $2.9 billion deal with the Ugandan government to begin production and distribution of the nation’s rich crude oil, enriching high-profile investors in America and Asia.

The company also recently recruited the help of the English Premier League Football Club Sunderland AFC, who are tasked with making in investing the region both culturally and economic feasible for wealthy Britons.

By 2018, Uganda stands to produce nearly 180,000 barrels of oils a day, according to the the nation’s energy secretary.

This also brings new focus to the topic of Chinese investment in African oil-exploration sites, including a partnership with Tullow company in Uganda.

In 2009, China surpassed the United States as the largest trading partner to all African countries.

While Western nations turn to their militaries, Chinese companies have already spent tens of billions of dollars building infrastructure and mines in Africa, says the Economist, and the next decade of African cooperation stands to benefit China immensely in comparative trade totals.

In essence, this represents a new era of mercantilism, focused on the vast natural resources which have often proved to be a curse for the often war-torn citizens of African states.

A study published in Political Geography magazine a few years ago explores this issue more deeply, arguing that Africa has become the battleground for the competing hegemons of China and the United States–conveniently misplacing the interests of the African people.

CONCLUSION

While there is no simple  answer to fully present the fallacies and disingenuous aims of the Kony 2012 campaign, it is important to remind readers and internet users of the inherent necessity of skepticism when faced with large-scale and well-funded campaigns backed by political, economic and Hollywood elites.

Though the campaign may have succeeded in awakening millions of the previously unlearned to the terrible atrocities of the African civil wars, those same millions should know that a return to fundamental justice on the continent will require more critical reassessments than a dubious social media campaign coincidentally parroting the same line as monied oil interests.

In the end, it will take an alert and knowledgeable citizenry, able to trump the vested interests which crowd traditional and new-age decision makers in media and government, privately enriching themselves based on the suffering and fleeting of their fellow man.

Lessons in Federalism

February 11th, 2012, 12:04 am by

Imagine the local sheriff or police chief issuing an arrest warrant for the President of the United States.

Imagine that the majority of the citizens in that local jurisdiction agree with the arrest warrant, and in fact take to the streets to support its issuance.

Imagine that other local sheriffs and police chiefs band together to push back against dictates or laws enforced by the government in Washington, and accordingly mount a popular campaign to stop the President in his tracks.

In the American system of government, this possibility is quite remote, but other institutionalized federal systems around the world have done just that.

On Friday, leaders from the Federation of Greek Police, the largest police union in the country, threatened to issue arrest warrants for European Union and International Monetary Fund officials.

To the casual observer on the American continent, this may seem quite bizarre. Why would Greeks be trying to arrest people who are trying to help them get back on course, especially people who have no direct say in the government?

In much the same way as local sheriffs have no control over the President’s actions, the same exists for Greek police—or even the Greek people.

For a better understanding of federalism, it is fitting to examine three systems in three different contexts. This will include political power, economic power, and legal power in the examples of the European Union, the United States, and Canada.

THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE

After years of successful treaties between European nations, the new form of government for the continent is one in which multiple nations have delegated away much of their individual sovereignty in order to secure a “common market” for all Europeans to enjoy.

Accordingly, Europeans are permitted to travel freely on the continent, as well as have access to the markets in other countries.

All the treaties were negotiated only by a few leaders of participating states, and individual populations were rarely, if ever, given the right to weigh in democratically on the new power structure sought by pro-European (as opposed to nationalist) negotiators.

In fact, whenever the treaties have been voted on publicly, they have been largely voted down. France and the Netherlands voted against the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, while Ireland initially voted against the latest Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

For the supranationalists of Europe—those pledging allegiance to a system of government where power is delegated to a higher authority above already existing states—the hope has always been for a kind of “United States of Europe,” as first imagined by Winston Churchill. This would follow the model of the United States of America, with a central government presiding over individual jurisdictions known as states.

While some would view this as a measure of natural evolution of confederated power, there are many other consequences that Europeans must deal with in this new federated system.

In the newly-constructed federal system of the European Union, laws and regulations are no longer solely decided by an elected legislature in the capitals of democratic nations.

Instead, close to 70% of all laws enacted in Europe are handed down by the EU bureaucracy, known as the EU Commission and headquartered in Brussels. The Commission is heavily staffed, adequately funded, and freed from the burdens of election cycles.

This means that individual populations have  no democratic control of the majority of the laws passed in their country. Even the makeup of the national budgets will be decided by the EU in the next few years.

According to the newest treaty compact, all European nations will be barred from producing any budget deficits larger than 0.5 percent.

And now, as Greece attempts to restructure its debt and pay back lenders who have sustained their grossly-enlarged welfare state for the past thirty years, the harsh decisions are not being made by the accountable politicians sent to Athens by the Greek electorate—all the power rests in unelected centers of power who have complete authority to dictate without repercussion.

Similarly, while the United States of America represents a union of closely-knit communities with a common history, language, and culture, the history of Europe is populated with a plethora of ethnic, linguistic, and historical groups.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Referring to the example entertained in the first section, it has always been assumed that the President of the United States enjoys an executive power which places the position far above the fray of local and state jurisdictions.

In the current American model, the most distinguishing factor is the growing centralization of political decision-making above local, county, and state levels.

And nothing is more evident than in the amount of money the government claims from its citizens.

In the last budget signed by President Obama, the federal government planned to spend $3.7 trillion. 

Considering the USA’s $14.58 trillion gross domestic product, this means that the Federal government in Washington, D.C. consumes 25% of all money earned.

For state and local governments, if spending and economic output are averaged across all 50 states, then each state’s spending  is approximately equivalent to 40% of total average GDP.

More simply put, if an average American works a full 12 months out of the year, then approximately 6.5 months’ worth of wages are paid directly to the the government, depending on the tax bracket.

At least for state government, more reasonable arguments exist for proportional amounts of public spending.

If the people elect certain politicians to spend a specific amount of money on programs, the ratio of electorate to elected officials should naturally determine that unpopular programs or spending will lead to new people being elected into office–the most basic premise of modern democratic government.

All politics is local. This is why local government is always more responsive to local concerns, whereas the highest level of federal government often exercises authority that large numbers of the population do not support. A public backlash against a county-wide health care plan, or even Romneycare, would be repealed much more easily than Obamacare, for example, because the political will against the bill is uniformly lacking across all 50 states.

This is a symptom of the significant amount of capital has been allocated to the central government in Washington, the federal system has overwhelming favored more expansive authority in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government.

The trend of the American federal system now leads to greater centralization, whether seen in education, health, or environmental concerns. This has been precipitated by the growing regulatory burdens passed by Congress, the unprecedented claims of power by the executive, and the nationalization of issues by the federal judiciary.

Viewed objectively, it is a very different system envisioned by the writers of the Constitution over 200 years ago.

The relatively simple, limited set of rules established by the founding fathers was to give preference to local jurisdictions and states, stringently holding centralized power to account.

Now, in the age of federalizing local police departments, nationalizing the simplest of regulations, and funding world history’s largest military ever assembled, the central government holds impressive weight in the balance against states, far ideal of a decentralized union championed so many years ago.

CANADA

The lessons of the American Civil War, which ultimately took close to half a million lives, were especially powerful in the formation of a new country in British North America.

Confederated in 1867, the nation of Canada sprung from the formation of two powerful political jurisdictions managed by the British Empire, later known as Québec and Ontario. By creating its own constitution, the newly-minted nation hoped to reclaim full sovereignty from the British crown, allowing it to eventually grow large enough to become the second-largest landmass nation in the world.

Keeping in mind the large size of the territory, as well as the disastrous Civil War to the south, the founding principles of Canadian Confederation rested on the idea of a powerful central government, authoritative enough to  manage affairs of the English and French-speaking populations spread out over millions of acres of territory.

After a century and a half of institutional evolution, as well as a formal legal separation from the UK in a new constitution in 1982, Canada stands proud as one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

Most functions of government are reserved for the provinces, such as healthcare, education, environmental legislation, and mining rights.

The federal government funds the military, federal police, and provides services for the aboriginal population.

If any constitutional question is brought before the Canadian Supreme Court, the presumption is always that the provinces have essential authority.

The provincial premiers (similar to state governors) exercise great authority in all realms of life (unlike state governors).

Juxtaposed with the American and European federated systems, the Canadian model is represents a proportional balance between major functions of government and equally powerful democratic accountability.

CONCLUSION

As long as states have been instituted among men, there have been restrictive arguments on how they should be ordered.

The major federal systems of today provide adequate examples where either too much authority has been centralized or where the discretion of the democratic majority has been purposefully avoided so as to bring out a government favoring certain groups.

If the populations of democratic republics wish to continue to honor the traditions and foundations which have overseen so much wealth creation and protection, they would be open to considering the true virtues of federalism in public life.

A Portrait of the Journalist as a Young Man

February 7th, 2012, 1:10 pm by

There is no more exciting adventure than questioning those in power.

It’s an act I’ve been able to enjoy in different countries, cities, and languages.

I’ve been able to interview small-town mayors, bigwig police chiefs, and was even awarded the chance to grill New Jersey Governor Chris Christie while he flirted with running for national office.

In what other line of work is examining the hierarchy of authority not only permissible but also encouraged?

It should be stated quite clearly, however, that journalism was not my first calling.

As my affinity for the oxford comma would suggest, I was a student dedicated to complicated analyses of political and economic consequence. My mind was fixated upon the guiding principles and philosophies which sprang from the rhetorical tropes developed in ancient democratic Greece and the Roman Republic. My pleasure reading was piles of treatises by Cicero, Machiavelli, and Henry David Thoreau, all having revered the rule of law and respect for individual rights that their early republics had once championed but later dismissed.

Then I found myself in the ancient streets of Europe, in the midst of the greatest economic crisis the world has ever known. The rhetorical whims of unelected European bureaucrats attempted to soothe the public that confidence in the common currency was key, while all indications pointed to its inevitable demise.

Where else could respect for individual rights, sovereignty, autonomy, and sound economic principles be found truly lacking but in this Union? A political union of 27 nations that was harshly enacted and procured through national parliaments, always out of the hands of individual voters in individual countries.

After dedicated study of those subjects in Montréal and Vienna, I began to use the knowledge developed to turn to the study of current events.

Where else could I use everything I had learned but in the popular annotating of history in the present? Where else could I use the lessons of history to report on the actions, procedures, and mistakes of a growing power structure?

Thus I was led to journalism.

I make no secret my appreciation for principled judgment in the covering of stories. My energy is drawn toward informing a public which has been misled too far for too long. Too often, the focus of the general populace has followed the whims of the gatekeepers who have had unprecedented control of the access to information.

These are very same virtues echoed by former leaders of the American nation, which I have attempted to keep dear to my mind and pen as I serve the cause of journalism:

The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

-President Thomas Jefferson

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

-President Dwight David Eisenhower

The job of the journalist is, as Robert Fisk so eloquently stated, is to be the ultimate “witness to history.”

And such will be the driving passion for my own career.

 

Now you know who I am.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT